The DAK mark was used as early as 1967 by DAK Industries. The mark
was assigned as collateral to Tokai Bank Ltd which subsequently foreclosed
forcing DAK Industries into bankruptcy. A receiver was appointed,
who attempted to sell the mark, and filed a Declaration of Non-use which
was accepted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1996. On
or about March 26, 1999, the marks were sole to the Complainant. In February,
2000, the Complainant offered to purchase the domain name DAK.COM, which
offer the Respondent accepted, and then subsequently revoked.

The Respondent alleges that the Complainant abandoned its mark.
Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it registered the domain name as
a generic name (as dak means mail in Hindu) with the intention to use
the name or sell it in the future. The Respondent has registered
other generic names, some of which are Indian based names.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

There was no intention to abandon the mark, as the receiver filed
a declaration of non-use and attempted to sell the marks. The period
of time between the foreclosure and the sale of the marks was not unreasonable.
Therefore, the Complainant, by assignment, has rights in the trademark,
and the registered domain name is identical to that trademark.

Bare registration does not prove that the Respondent has rights or
a legitimate interest in the domain name. A right in the domain name
means some kind of legal entitlement such as a mark, and an interest
is something less, such as an established use of the term prior to registration
or significant promotional expenses with respect to a generic name.
The Respondent has only shown evidence of registration with the intent
to sell or use the domain name in the future, and therefore has no rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Registration of a domain name replicating an existing trademark is
not conclusive evidence of bad faith, and the Panel must look to section
4(b) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Here,
the exact replication of the existing trademark, the acceptance, later
revoked, of the Complainants offer to purchase within six months of registration
indicate the classic cybersquatter bad faith registration and use.

Evidence that the domain name was generic, dak meaning mail in
Hindu, was rejected on the basis that there was a lack of promotional expenses
and an initial willingness to sell the domain name soon after its registration
for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket expenses. Evidence
of when the domain name was registered, and which party initiated discussions
to purchase the domain name is irrelevant. Bad faith registration
has been demonstrated by the Respondent.

Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name "dak.com" pursuant to
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as adopted and approved by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") as supplemented by
the National Arbitration Forums Supplemental Rules to ICANNs Uniform
Domain Resolution Policy. "Dak.com" is registered with Network Solutions.
By registering its domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed
to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANNs Rules
for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy, pursuant to Network Solutions Service
Agreement Version 5.0.

Before the panel are the Complaint and Complainants Additional Response
filed by Complainant and a Response to Domain Complaint and Amended Response
filed by Respondent. Neither party requested an oral hearing.

FACTS

The domain name "dak.com" was registered by Respondent on November 14,
1998. Complainant Drew A. Kaplan Agency, Inc. ("Kaplan Agency") owns a
trademark, DAK, for use in electronic goods catalogue services and for
magnetic recording tape, inter alia, and accessories thereto. The DAK mark
was first used by DAK Industries, Inc. in 1967. The mark was registered
by Registration No. 1,148,203 in 1981 and Registration No. 1,570,338 in
1989 (the "Marks"). DAK Industries assigned the Marks to Tokai Bank Ltd.
("Tokai Bank") as collateral for a loan. In 1992, DAK Industries filed
a petition seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§ 101 et seq. Pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Code, it continued
in business until the case was converted to Chapter 7 in December 1994.
Prior to the conversion, DAK Industries had issued its Winter 1994 catalogue
for the sale of electronic goods. It appears that the automatic stay codified
in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) was modified in November or early December 1994
to permit Tokai Bank to foreclose on its collateral. On December 6, 1994,
a receiver was appointed in a state court proceeding to liquidate the collateral,
including inventory. On or about November 20, 1995, the receiver filed
with the United States Assistant Commissioner of Trademarks a Declaration
of Non-use for U.S. Registration No. 1,570,388. The purpose of filing a
declaration of non-use is to show the lack of intent to abandon a mark.
The declaration of non-use was accepted on or about October 8, 1996 by
the Patent and Trademark office of the Department of Commerce as fulfilling
statutory requirements.

On or about March 26, 1999, Tokai Bank sold the Marks to Kaplan Agency,
the principal of which is Drew A. Kaplan ("Kaplan"). Kaplan was also the
principal of DAK Industries and it bore his initials.

In February 2,000, Kaplan inquired of Respondents administrative contact
if he could purchase the domain name "dak.com". By e-mail, Kaplan was told
that the administrator would consider selling the domain name for $20,000.
Kaplan then offered $5,000, to which the owner replied "I will accept your
offer" and directed Kaplan to her attorney. The attorney requested information
from Kaplan, who sent it to him. The attorney then sent a sale agreement
to Kaplan and subsequently informed Kaplan that the owner "revokes his
acceptance of your offer" due to a mistake. Kaplans attorney asserts that
the attorney told him that the owner had received a better offer. Respondent
denies that there was a better offer. Respondent registered "dak.com" in
November 1998. It allegedly registered a generic name "dak" which assertedly
means "mail" in Hindu. It has registered other Indian based names, such
as "calcutta.com" and "rupee.com".

Respondent does not contend that it has employed the domain name since
it was registered or made any preparations to do so. It asserts that it
registered several allegedly generic names, some of which are Indian based
names which it registered with the intention of using them or selling them
in connection with an unspecified India related business.

DISCUSSION

Section 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (the "Rules")
requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements
in order to sustain a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Section 4(b) provides:

Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith.

For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances,
in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present,
shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent has] registered or
[the Respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose
of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration
to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or
to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess
of [the Respondents] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to
the domain name; or

(ii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent
the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in
a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent has] engaged
in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the Respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for
the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted
to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondents] web
site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of [the Respondents] web site or location or of a product or service on
[the Respondents] web site or location. The Complainant bears the burden
of proof on these issues.1

1 The facts before us may present other issues in addition to issues
under the Rules. An arbitration panel under the Rules is not empowered
to decide such issues. In particular, we do not decide whether the statements
and actions in February 2000 resulted in an enforceable contract to sell
the domain name.

Similarity Of Domain Name With Marks In Which Complainant Has Rights

The Respondent does not dispute the first of these issues. Even so,
in its Amended Response it contends that the Marks were abandoned through
non-use for more than three years.

Section 45 of the Lanham Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1127, provides that non-use
for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment of a
mark. The presumption is easily rebuttable. T. McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on
Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 17:21 (4th Ed. 1999). Under the
statute, the question is one of intent. Id. at § 17.20. Abandonment
is established, under the majority rule, only by clear and convincing evidence.
Id., § 17:12. Moreover, "[a]bandonment does not result from a temporary
forced withdrawal from the market due to causes such as ... bankruptcy
.... However, as soon as the external cause has passed, the user must resume
use within a reasonable time." Id. at § 17:16.

Here, there was use up to December 1994, when Tokai Bank foreclosed
and the bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7. The receiver attempted
to sell the Marks and filed a declaration of non-use for one of the Marks,
which was accepted in October 1996. Kaplan Agency purchased the Marks in
March 1999. Since then it has used a domain name "dak2000.com" and intends
to resume catalogue publication in the summer of 2000.

For several reasons we find no intent to abandon the Marks on this record.
First, the bankruptcy of DAK Industries is not an intention to abandon
the Marks where, as here (i) they were foreclosed on, (ii) the receiver
filed a declaration of non-use for one of the Marks and continued to market
both of the Marks, and (iii) the bank ultimately sold the Marks. The 4
_ year period between foreclosure and sale does not appear to be unreasonable.
Marks can be significant collateral for lenders who would loan funds to
companies whose trademarks may be their chief asset. To permit only a three
year or four period in which trademarks must be foreclosed and sold could
deprive trademarks of significant value as collateral for such lenders
and discourage such financing. Nor would it be unreasonable for a purchaser
at foreclosure to require a year or two to obtain capital.

In addition, the evidence of sale attempts and the filing of a declaration
of non-use belie an intention by Tokai Bank to abandon the Marks. Instead,
Tokai Bank was obviously attempting to preserve their value so that it
could realize that value.

We thus find that the first element of Section 4(a) is satisfied. The
Marks and domain name are identical and the Complainant, by assignment,
has rights in the Marks.

RESPONDENTS RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN NAME

As to the second element of Section 4(a), Respondents registration
of the domain name could be said to afford it rights in the name. But it
appears that the second element requires more than just registration. If
the second element were to be deemed satisfied by mere registration, a
complainant could never show that a respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name for all are registered. More, therefore, must
be required. A "right" bespeaks of a legal entitlement such as a mark.
For example, the term "united" might be embraced in several marks with
another term such as "movers", "airlines" or "technologies", held by different
owners. An "interest" is something less. It could be found in use of a
generic term as a link to another web site, significant promotional expenses
with respect to a generic name or an established use of the term prior
to registration.

Here, the evidence is merely of registration with an alleged intention
to sell or use in the future. There is no evidence of linkage to another
web site, promotional development or prior established use of the term.
We, therefore, hold that the second element has been satisfied.

BAD FAITH

Thus, we turn to the third element of Section 4(a), bad faith registration
and use. We do not agree that registration of a domain name replicating
an existing trademark is conclusive evidence of bad faith. Were the Rules
to be interpreted to permit an inference or presumption of wrongful motive
from solely registration of a domain name that is similar or identical
to a mark, such an interpretation would swallow up the non-exclusive instances
of prima facie evidence of bad faith listed in Section 4(b).

Here, there is no evidence that the Complainant and Respondent are competitors,
there is no evidence of any attempt by Respondent to attract Internet users
to a web site through confusion with the Marks, and there is no evidence
of a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent an owner of
a mark from reflecting the mark in a domain name. Thus, Sections 4(b)(ii),
(iii) and (iv) of the Rules are inapplicable.

Section 4(b)(i) of the Rules addresses the so-called "classic cybersquatter"
case where one registers a domain name with the intention to arbitrage
it. See, Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).
Proof of intention is almost always based on circumstantial evidence. Here,
there is such evidence in exact replication of the Marks in the domain
name, the absence of promotional development of the domain name, the offer
to sell the domain name for $20,000 and the willingness, later revoked,
to sell the domain name to the trademark owner for $5,000 within six months
of its registration. Together, these indicate an intention to register
the domain name primarily for purposes of selling it in excess of out-of-pocket
costs. Section 4(b) of the Rules provides that such evidence is evidence
of both bad faith registration and use.

Against this evidence lie principally (i) Respondents contention that
the domain name was chosen because "dak" is a generic word meaning "mail"
in Hindi and was to be used in developing business in India, (ii) that
it registered the domain name prior to Kaplan Agencys acquisition of the
Marks, and (iii) that Kaplan initiated the conversations regarding sale
of the domain name. We find these contentions unpersuasive. The notion
that "dak.com" was registered as a generic name in Hindi for use in developing
Indian business or for sale in connection with Indian business is controverted,
if not belied, by the lack of promotional expenses and the initial willingness
to sell the domain name soon after its registration. Moreover, from Respondents
Response to the Complaint, it appears that the translation of "dak" in
Hindi to "mail" was more of an afterthought than an original intention.
Whether domain name registration occurred before or after Kaplan Agency
acquired the Marks is irrelevant: the Marks had been previously registered
and belonged to Tokai Bank. Whether Kaplan or Respondent initiated sale
negotiations is of little consequence. One can register a domain name with
the intention to sell it at an excess cost and wait for the mark owner
to call to ask if the domain name is for sale. Thus, after weighing the
evidence, we conclude, on balance, that Section 4(b)(i) of the Rules has
been satisfied.

Accordingly, it is decided that Network Solutions shall transfer the
domain name "dak.com" to Complainant.

Domain
Name Transferred

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in title

Search in content

Search in content

Search in excerpt

Search in posts

Search in posts

Search in pages

Search in pages

Filter by Categories

DNattorney com blog

DNattorney.com blog

Uncategorised

Uncategorised

Fast Free Consultations

CALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

Are you buying or selling domain names?

If you are interested in buying a domain name, a domain name portfolio, a website, or network of websites, very often a better price can be obtained from the seller by employing the services of an experienced Internet lawyer. We have acted for numerous domain name and website buyers and sellers, all over the world. We have acted in sales of single domain names from as little as $10,000.00 to sales of major domain name portfolios of over $10,000,000.00

Do you need help in a Domain Name Dispute?

We represent both domain name registrants and trademark owners in connection with Domain Name Disputes. Since 1999, we have represented hundreds of clients all over the world in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaints before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and in Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) arbitrations before the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) and Resolution Canada, as well as other online arbitration service providers.

Did cybersquatters take your domain name?

The first step in recovering your domain name from a cybersquatter is research. Whenever we are retained to assist you with recovering a domain name that rightfully belongs to you, we begin by thoroughly researching every aspect of the domain name and investigating the background of the cybersquatter. We employ unique methods that enable us to know who the cybersquatter is, what their intentions are, and the best method for recovering a particular domain name in the circumstances. In this manner, we always are able to provide you with the complete picture of the prospects for recovery and the issues that may be faced during the recovery process.

Who operates DNattorney.com?

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson. Muscovitch was the founder and publisher of Domain Name Law Reports - a volunteer organization that helped lawyers research Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and cases. Muscovitch has also released several studies. In 2010 he published a study following the case distribution among the panelists at National Arbitration Forum.